Hi, Mark. Sorry it's taken me so long to reply to this. Wrapping up a
semester and all.
----- Original Message -----
From: "118" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Comparing
Hi Carl,
Thanks for your post, and yes, I believe the question pertains to MoQ.
Under the rubric of "survival" (which is often used to explain
evolutionism), I agree with your presentation. If we move into the
stratosphere of contemplation or thought, we can categorize
comparison, or relativity, as one form of thought and consider other
ways in which we can interpret the world. Indeed, for survival we
must place a snake into the immediate realm of its direct relevance to
the situation we find ourselves. If what we think is a snake is
actually a rope, then we can contemplate what this mistake means in a
broader sense. In the same way we can consider what our
conceptualizing of the world as relative means, and what the
alternatives are.
Carl:
I agree, to a point. We can re-classify the rope as "not snake" but the
next time we see something similar, our first reaction is going to be
"snake." It's the way we're wired. This is more relevant to the discussion
later.
Mark:
In my opinion, Quality cannot be addressed through comparison, putting
it outside of Relativism. In the same way, MoQ can be considered on
its own, rather than its relationship with other forms of thought.
Using this method, the "qualities" of things can also be seen as not
relative to each other. If we are presented with a good apple and a
bad apple, we choose. Choosing is a process of comparison. But if we
question what does a good apple v a bad apple mean intrinsically it is
possible to remove ourselves from the relative framework. I think
this goes to the heart of MoQ, where Quality is presented as a
fundamental noun.
Carl:
I understand what you're saying. You're presenting the concept of "Quality"
as an inherent effect, not as a descriptor so much as a stand-alone "is"
that's distinct from the essense of the thing itself. I think you want to
remove it from the mental process completely. i.e. we don't compare SQ and
DQ, they just happen. The nit that I would have to pick with that idea is
that once it's removed from the mental process, it becomes somewhat sterile.
Is that how you see it? It stops having an impact on anything. It just is.
Mark:
It is easy to couch our understanding using strict concepts such as
ephemeral, co-dependent, or non-inherent to help us cope with
questions we have, but these are relative concepts used to oppose
equally valid concepts such as permanence and inherent existence. We
fall into the trap of stating that change a permanent process which
then leaves us with an independent and inherent existence. One
strategy is to get away from this Yin Yang approach and view MoQ
differently. That is from a place which is neither inherent or
non-inherent, neither "ever-changing" or permanent. This is what I
believe Buddhism means by "the middle way". The idea is to let go of
these concepts that we cling to.
Carl:
I agree, but I'm not sure it's possible. We are divided into material and
mental, and that dichotomy isn't going away. Where does "Quality" fit on
that spectrum? Is it totally material, in that is applies to everything in
whatever essense presents, or is it mental in that it's completely within
our perspectives? Somewhere in the middle? Do you see the problem here?
Mark:
In my opinion, the Zen approach does just this. It is a mix of
Mahayana Buddhism and Taoism. It addresses the "moment" as permanent,
and requires constant reincarnation to provide some consistency to
what we see as a continuous self. It emphasizes the usefulness of
paying attention to the moment.
Carl:
I've heard the argument that the moment is all we really have, but there are
so many variables involved that I think it's disingenius. We act as we've
either been taught to act or in a manner that's inherent in our nature (not
getting into the nature/nurture argument here) to the point that stating
that we live only in the moment is silly. If we've been bitten by a dog
before, we automatically react to the man-eating chihauhua that's coming at
us. The chihuahua is in the moment, but our reaction is from something that
happened in the past. How much of tomorrow is involved in today? I'm
taking classes, preparing myself for yet another career change. I can't
just put on the uniform of my new career and start doing it, I have to
prepare first. That's not living in the moment. Every minute I spend
studying is a future-enhancing thing. I'm doing it now, but I'm not doing
it FOR now. Granted, in the event of the heat death of the universe, my
time will have been wasted, but I still spend it studying, because I think
the likelyhood of the sun exploding is negligable enough that I don't have
to worry about it. Does that make me a pragmatist?
Mark:
So, I do not necessarily question the usefulness of placing everything
within a relative framework. What I am trying to explore are the
limits of such usefulness and perhaps destructive tendencies of
Relativism in our modern world. I believe we are allowed modes of
theoretical thought that can remove us from everyday empiricism; I am
not a positivist or a materialist in this sense. Words are intended
to give us a sense of control over things, as has been philosophized
through the ages. At the same time, words can also relinquish our
sense of control. Neither of these approaches is adequate for MoQ, in
my opinion.
Carl:
You're arguing for changing the basic paradigm, and I am on your side of the
argument. I'm just not sure it's possible. You want to change the basic
nature with which we interact with the world. How would you do that? I've
got five children, and I watched all five figure out how they fit within the
world. All of them came to themselves via a relativist position. Mostly,
it was a birth-order thing, where they fit themselves into the dynamic of
the existing family sturcture. Within that, I worked very hard to make sure
they were all independent. Outside the family, they are extremely
independet. Within the family, they are ruled by their mother, who is a
traditional Korean woman. Birth order and sex determine their position
relative to their mother. With me, they are seperate entities and I treat
them as such. How would they incorporate everything they've learned and
discard it? Would they? I think what you're after is for them to get to a
point where they are completely independent, responding only to their own
ideation of their individual essense. Kind of a fascinating thought, but
again, I'm not sure it's possible. (Economic, social, etc. considerations
apply here.) What do you think? Better question: If they could, would they
all end up like Paris Hilton?
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html
